I want less continuity
JamesBondJunior
Posts: 67MI6 Agent
I've posted topics about Bond being played by Sean Connery or a young black actor and have read many suggestions to bring back past Bond actors or adapt the Teen Bond novels. But too many fans resist because they cling to some insistence that all of these films are continuations. I think for the 21st century, we should just forget the rules of continuity.
Daniel Craig's films exist in their own timeline which initially made me hate his films. Now I think its fine. Its just too sillly imagining his Bond could ever be Roger Moore's Bond or either being Sean Connery's Bond. Its already pretty stupid that the character never ages (or its one of the charms 8-) )
When you watch a Tarzan film or a Dracula film or a Sherlock Holmes film, the stories usually stand on their own. I think Bond films should follow suit. The character is so well known and well established, that now we can go off on tangents. This would allow films that are purely Fleming's vision of old-fashioned Cold War espionage, which I am a fan of but does not purely represent the character anymore.
Also, how about some remakes already. The Bond franchise has opened up slightly to this idea with their video games producing a remake of Goldeneye and an updated From Russia With Love. Eventually, the films will have to follow.
Having more free-form Bond stories may confuse the general public, but could also reinvigorate its young fanbase. Fans seem to love keeping track of Star Trek and Star Wars and any franchise with multiple continuities and timelines. Anyone following the Bond book series already knows how many different versions of Bond's world there is.
Daniel Craig's films exist in their own timeline which initially made me hate his films. Now I think its fine. Its just too sillly imagining his Bond could ever be Roger Moore's Bond or either being Sean Connery's Bond. Its already pretty stupid that the character never ages (or its one of the charms 8-) )
When you watch a Tarzan film or a Dracula film or a Sherlock Holmes film, the stories usually stand on their own. I think Bond films should follow suit. The character is so well known and well established, that now we can go off on tangents. This would allow films that are purely Fleming's vision of old-fashioned Cold War espionage, which I am a fan of but does not purely represent the character anymore.
Also, how about some remakes already. The Bond franchise has opened up slightly to this idea with their video games producing a remake of Goldeneye and an updated From Russia With Love. Eventually, the films will have to follow.
Having more free-form Bond stories may confuse the general public, but could also reinvigorate its young fanbase. Fans seem to love keeping track of Star Trek and Star Wars and any franchise with multiple continuities and timelines. Anyone following the Bond book series already knows how many different versions of Bond's world there is.
Comments
Fleming's Bond books also have some continuity errors, but on the whole, it is fairly faithful to the Bond timeline. Bond films should stay true to the Fleming concept, because James Bond is the character that Ian Fleming created. We do not have the licence to write the character as we please, the writers of upcoming movies need to remember that they aren't making just any action movie, they are making a Bond movie, and there are certain rules that must not be broken when writing a story for James Bond.
Funny you should mention Star Trek, because I am also a Star Trek fan. I'm not particularly a fan of the franchise's latest movie, as it is a reboot in a different timeline and took no regard for continuity, making the excuse that it was an "alternate timeline". I guess I could look at Casino Royale in the same way - it was a good movie, granted, it was in an alternate timeline. I do not want less continuity, I want the status quo - maybe no more continuity, but definitely no less.
Each Fleming book, until the last three novels in the series, is standalone except for references which adequately recap certain events so that nothing is missed...more of a reward for the series follower than compulsory reading in order to understand what's going on.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Gimmicks won't save the series. What is important is making good films. They should make James Bond films thrillers again for starters.
I don't know what you're getting at there. I simply said that its hard imagining each actor's Bond as the same character. Just because Bond was married in LTK doesn't necessarily mean its referencing the OHMSS film. If Dalton's films exist in their own continuity and only follow the book series, he would still have been married.
I respect that with the Craig films, we don't have to believe this version of Bond will grow into the previous Bond versions. He is in his own world. As he is humorless, physically intimidating and less concerned with his vices, he can stand on his own and not be compared to the other actors as much.
I think people complained about Dalton, Moore and Brosnan's Bonds mostly because they are trying to see them as the same character. AVTK's Bond becoming TLD's Bond didn't work for audience back then. No one complained about Casino Royale because Craig's Bond isn't supposed to be Brosnan's. If the producers had made of point of saying Dalton's series is its own series, he may have had more fans on his side and it would make more sense in the logic of his stories.
The first 20 films are supposed to be one continuity. Fine. And these Craig films are their own continuity. And lets not forget NSNA's continuity. I think there should be more films existing in their own continuity so the filmmakers can bring their own vision to the project and worry less about linking to previous stories. This topic was partly inspired by the discussion of Tarantino directing his own Bond film. People worry that it would be too different and close to Tarantino's interests. Who cares as long as its good? If it took place in the world of Tarantino's characters and not the usual Bond universe, it would be great fun and very different. Follow me?
And to Ricardo, remaking films doesn't have to be a gimmick if you can make something superior. I wouldn't mind YOLT or DAF or TMWTGG remakes, because they aren't the greatest movies and have strong enough source material to be re-imagined. But I would hate to see classics like Dr. No, Goldfinger, FRWL or Thunderball redone (sorry NSNA). I LOVE TSWLM, but it has nothing to do with the book, which could make a cool feature film or short film.
I rather leave them alone and just move on. As for DAF, GG, and SPY those novels weren't that good to begin with IMO. I don't see the nessecity of remaking them.
Its = belongs to it.
It's = it is.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Oh, come on. It's as obvious as night follows day that Bond was married to Tracy, and the reference in Licence to Kill is to that of his marriage to Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It couldn't be anything else.
While I will not comment on the merits of Tarantino directing a Bond film, what I will say is this: There has to be a set formula for Bond films, or it ceases to become a Bond film and instead it becomes some other action movie. I can accept that movies are different, but in making Bond films, the movie has to respect the character that James Bond is. I don't want a director that doesn't live and breathe James Bond. Timothy Dalton apparently spent his time preparing to play Bond by reading all of Fleming's Bond novels. That's the sort of work that is necessary to gain an insight into the character that Bond is, and I don't want to see another director F it up like Lee whatshisname in Die Another Day.
Yes I know this. I'm saying that if the series had originally decided that each actor's series was unconnected that License to Kill would still have made sense and that people would understand the Tracy reference. LTK would obviously take place after OHMSS, the film and/or the book.